In the design of artifacts that interact with people, the spatial dimensions of the target user population are often used to determine the requirements of the engineered artifact. The expected variability in body dimensions (called “anthropometry”) is used to indicate how much adjustability or how many sizes are required to accommodate the intended user population. However, the quantification of anthropometric variability alone is not sufficient to make these kinds of assessments in many situations. For example, two vehicle drivers with similar body dimensions might have different preferred locations for the seat. In these situations, preference can be broken down into two components: that explained by body size and the variability that remains. By quantifying the magnitude of both sources, preference can be included in modeling strategies and design decision-making. This improves the accuracy of models and predictions, and can facilitate the application of design automation tools such as optimization and robust design methodologies, resulting in products that are safer, cost effective, and more accessible to broader populations (including people with disabilities). In contrast, failure to include variability in preference that is not attributable to anthropometry can produce misleading results that under- or over-approximate accommodation and prescribe inappropriate amounts of adjustability. A simulation-based approach for modeling both sources of variability and conducting designing for human variability (DfHV) assessments is presented. A stochastic component based on the residual variance in regression analysis relating body dimensions to experimental data is included in the predictive model. This ensures that a distribution of preferred configurations is produced for any given set of body dimensions. The effect of including both components of preference is quantified by comparing this approach to two traditional DfHV approaches in the context of a simple, univariate case study to determine the appropriate allocation of adjustability to achieve a desired accommodation level.

1.
HFES 300 Committee
, 2004,
Guidelines for Using Anthropometric Data in Product Design
,
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
,
Santa Monica, CA.
2.
SAE International
, 2006,
Automotive Engineering Handbook
,
SAE International
,
Warrendale, PA
.
3.
Roe
,
R.
, 1993,
Automotive Ergonomics
,
Taylor & Francis
,
London
, pp.
11
42
.
4.
Parkinson
,
M.
,
Reed
,
M.
,
Kokkolaras
,
M.
, and
Papalambros
,
P.
, 2007, “
Optimizing Truck Cab Layout for Driver Accommodation
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
129
(
11
), pp.
1110
1117
.
5.
Michalek
,
J.
,
Ceryan
,
O.
,
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
, and
Koren
,
Y.
, 2006, “
Balancing Marketing and Manufacturing Objectives in Product Line Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
128
(
6
), pp.
1196
1204
.
6.
Zou
,
T.
, and
Mahadevan
,
S.
, 2006, “
Versatile Formulation for Multiobjective Reliability-Based Design Optimization
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
128
(
6
), pp.
1217
1226
.
7.
Van der Vegte
,
W.
, and
Horvath
,
I.
, 2006, “
Including Human Behavior in Product Simulations for the Investigation of Use Processes in Conceptual Design: A Survey
,”
Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
,
ASME International
,
Philadelphia, PA
, Paper No. DETC2006-99541.
8.
MacDonald
,
E.
,
Gonzalez
,
R.
, and
Papalambros
,
P.
, 2009, “
Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision Making
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
131
(
3
), pp.
031009
.
9.
MacDonald
,
E. F.
,
Gonzalez
,
R.
, and
Papalambros
,
P.
, 2008, “
The Construction of Preferences for Crux and Sentinel Product Attributes
,”
J. Eng. Design
0954-4828, to be published.
10.
Kumar
,
D.
,
Hoyle
,
C.
,
Chen
,
W.
,
Wang
,
N.
,
Gomez-Levi
,
G.
, and
Koppelman
,
F.
, 2007, “
Incorporating Customer Preferences and Market Trends in Vehicle Package Design
,”
Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
, Las Vegas, NV, Paper No. DETC2007-35520.
11.
Shiau
,
C.
, and
Michalek
,
J.
, 2008, “
Should Designers Worry About Market Systems?
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
131
, pp.
1
9
.
12.
Michalek
,
J.
,
Papalambros
,
P.
, and
Skerlos
,
S.
, 2004, “
A Study of Fuel Efficiency and Emission Policy Impact on Optimal Vehicle Design Decisions
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
126
(
6
), pp.
1062
1070
.
13.
Diffrient
,
N.
,
Tilley
,
A.
, and
Bardagjy
,
J.
, 1981,
Humanscale
,
MIT
,
Cambridge, MA
.
14.
Siemans PLM Software
, 2009,
Tecnomatix Jack
,
Siemans PLM Software
,
Plano, TX
.
15.
Human Solutions
, 2009,
RAMSIS
,
Human Solutions of North America
,
Troy, MI
.
16.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
, 1994,
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III, 1988–1994
,
National Center for Health Statistics
,
Hyattsville, MD
.
17.
Drillis
,
R.
, and
Conyini
,
R.
, 1966,
Body Segment Parameters
,
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Engineering and Science
,
New York
.
18.
Fromuth
,
R.
, and
Parkinson
,
M.
, 2008, “
Predicting the 5th and 95th Percentile Anthropometric Segment Lengths From Population Stature
,”
Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
, New York, NY, Paper No. DETC2008-50091.
19.
Gordon
,
C. C.
,
Churchill
,
T.
,
Clauser
,
C. E.
,
Bradtmiller
,
B.
,
McConville
,
J. T.
,
Tebbetts
,
I.
, and
Walker
,
R. A.
, 1989, “
1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics. Final Report
,” Report No. NATICK/TR-89/027.
20.
Clauser
,
C.
,
Bradtmiller
,
B.
,
McConville
,
J.
, and
Gordon
,
C.
, 1989, “
Measurer’s Handbook: US Army Anthropometric Survey 1987–1988
,” United States Army NATICK Research, Development and Engineering Center, Technical Report No. NATICK/TR-88/043.
21.
Moroney
,
W.
, and
Smith
,
M.
, 1972, “
Empirical Reduction in Potential User Population as the Result of Imposed Multivariate Anthropometric Limits
,” Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Technical Report No. NAMRL-1164 (AD 752 032).
22.
Bittner
,
A. C.
, 2000, “
A-CADRE: Advanced Family of Manikins for Workstation Design
,”
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
, Long Beach, CA, pp.
774
777
.
23.
Reed
,
M.
, and
Flannagan
,
C.
, 2000, “
Anthropometric and Postural Variability: Limitations of the Boundary Manikin Approach
,”
SAE Transactions: Journal of Passenger Cars—Mechanical Systems
,
109
, Technical Paper No. 2000-01-3405.
24.
Parkinson
,
M.
, and
Reed
,
M.
, 2006, “
Optimizing Vehicle Occupant Packaging
,”
SAE Transactions: Journal of Passenger Cars—Mechanical Systems
,
115
, Technical Paper No. 2006-01-0961.
25.
Faraway
,
J. J.
,
Zhang
,
X.
, and
Chaffin
,
D.
, 1999, “
Rectifying Postures Reconstructed From Joint Angles to Meet Constraints
,”
J. Biomech.
0021-9290,
32
(
7
), pp.
733
736
.
26.
Chaffin
,
D.
,
Faraway
,
J.
,
Zhang
,
X.
, and
Woolley
,
C.
, 2000, “
Stature, Age, and Gender Effects on Reach Motion Postures
,”
Hum. Factors
0018-7208,
42
(
3
), pp.
408
420
.
27.
Abdel-Malek
,
K.
,
Yang
,
J.
,
Brand
,
R.
, and
Tanbour
,
E.
, 2004, “
Towards Understanding the Workspace of Human Limbs
,”
Ergonomics
0014-0139,
47
(
13
), pp.
1386
1405
.
28.
Parkinson
,
M. B.
, and
Reed
,
M. P.
, 2006, “
Improved Head Restraint Design for Safety and Compliance
,” ASME Paper No. DETC2006-99429.
29.
Flannagan
,
C.
,
Manary
,
M.
,
Schneider
,
L.
, and
Reed
,
M.
, 1998, “
Improved Seating Accommodation Model With Application to Different User Populations
,”
Proceedings of the SAE International Congress and Exposition
,
SAE
,
Warrendale, PA
, Vol.
1358
, pp.
43
50
.
30.
Reed
,
M. P.
, and
Flannagan
,
C. A. C.
, 2001, “
Modeling Population Distributions of Subjective Ratings
,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2001-01-2122.
You do not currently have access to this content.